secondlifefandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Future plans for the wiki
Go for it I think broadening the scope is exactly what you should do. I've refrained from adding things in the past largely for the reason you mentioned ... I haven't been around long enough for anything much to feel historical that hasn't already been covered (i.e., release notes), and I simply wasn't around for a lot of the events that are covered, so I can't add much there. There are lots of things I could add to a broader knowledge-base, though, even just random things I come across. On the other hand, broadening the scope will probably require some refiguring ... the category structure right now is somewhat geared for the historical perspective, and more information comes at the price of additional difficulty sorting through it. For a broader encyclopedia, you'd probably want more general-purpose names for some categories (I was wondering whether The Great Wall was really a "historical place", for example). Anything that was indeed historical would go in subcategories of a main History category instead. I'd say that the wiki definitely seems to be headed in that direction already, so the only reason I can think of that you might want to wait on announcing it is to go ahead and get any needed restructuring out of the way. If you were going to wait until you added "enough" non-history stuff, how could you tell when you were "done"? Anyway, the idea is to get other people doing it too, so waiting until a lot is done already is counterproductive. You'd also want a new name :) As for getting others involved, I think that scope alone might make things pick up more, and resources like this tend to operate on a feedback loop ... the more people contribute, the more useful it is, so the more people use it, and thus contribute. Wikipedia itself, for example, has had a noticable increase in usefulness and visibility even just within the last 6-12 months, due mainly to the broadening scope of information there. Wikis do have a problem in that it takes awhile for people to get used to the idea that they are supposed to change and add things ... one reason being that they aren't really sure what the parameters are, so you need to elaborate on that a bit. For example, I was going to add an article on Acontia, but the most interesting things I could say about it concern my own land history in the sim, and the builds I've had there. (See also: Wikipedia's guidelines on vanity pages.) -Dyne 20:04, 28 Mar 2006 (EST) :Unlike wikipedia, we actually WANT you to have vanity pages here - through your own testimonials, we can gather data about what went on at some point in history. Maybe we should draft up some sort of policy page, but as far as I'm concerned, anything goes. Oz later added the unwritten rule "no drama", as in, do not use the wiki in a way that would hurt other people, such as posting RL info without their consent etc. :-Eggy 05:42, 29 Mar 2006 (EST) Reply Well I generaly would like to go along with SL's TOS and CS. The no-drama thing was more of keeping away from people adding stuff like "such and such is an ass", personal attacks, that kinda thing. Sometimes "drama" is a part of what happened as well, like in the Social History. Vanity to a degree is ok, but I would like to keep the non-personal perspective that Wikipedia has in articles, besides user pages where you can give self naritives. Like avoid using "I" in articles except where it's a user page and the I is referring to like "Oz Spade", e.g. "I think this sim is one of the first." would be bad on DaBoom's page, but "I like cheese and long walks on the beach" would be fine on Oz Spade's page. Renaming would definitly be needed, as would re-categorizing as you said. That just takes time and some thinking on what should go where. It would probably be best to say "we want to restructure, do it as you can if you want" in the whole wiki spirit of things. The hardest part for me would be what to do with the museum, whether to keep it as a history museum or to somehow restructure that as well, into what? It could be a general museum I suppose. But anyway, that's really my problem, not the wikis. :) -Oz Spade 20:55, 29 Mar 2006 (EST) Single SL Wiki I don't think "broadening the scope" is the right choice since there is already a general SL Wiki and LSL Wiki. Granted, I think they should all be merged under a SINGLE SL Wiki but I can't stand the current SL Wiki's TikiWiki software. I prefer LSL Wiki's WakkaWiki but it needs updating. I would just concentrate and focus on making THIS wiki the best SL history wiki it can be. History is constantly being created so there will ALWAYS be content to add to it. I'd like to see page titles added. Gets annoying seeing the URL in the tab bar and nothing in the title bar (on Firefox anyway). -Eep 04:14, 30 Mar 2006 (EST) :Uh, I see the page titles in Firefox on both the tabs and the window as it is. Teen Grid for example, says "Teen Grid - SL History Wiki" on both. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean. :History is fine, but it limits the usefulness of the wiki as well as the ability of your average resident to contribute. Out of the three wikis, mentioned, this one is the only one that seems plausible for general information. One of the Linden wikis is is unreliable and seems to mostly be about help information, and the other is LSL specific. Anyway, I prefer MediaWiki the other two. :-Dyne 06:11, 30 Mar 2006 (EST) ::I kill this website's stylesheets because I don't like the white backgrounds and there's no alternative style(s) without annoyingly bright white backgrounds. I guess that kills page titles, too, which is stupid. ::But this wiki IS about SL's history and is QUITE useful in THAT respect. Like I wrote before, any resident can contribute because history is CONSTANTLY being made. Just as anyone can contribute to the LSL Wiki but most don't have to because the bulk of information is already there. This wiki has a lot of info already but can still have more. Expanding the wiki would be silly unless it's supported by LL. Again, I'd rather see ALL 3 SL wikis merged. ::-Eep 23:26, 30 Mar 2006 (EST) :You won't see an update to Wakka Wiki, there has been no development since 03. The best bet on that front would be Wacko Wiki or Wikka Wiki :-Baba 09:07, 15 Jun 2006 (EDT) Regarding General Wikis There really isn't a General wiki. The other Linden run wiki is a Support Wiki (by that wiki's own front page definition). While it does cover some other topics, it doesn't reach as wide a scope as it could. I don't know why people don't contribute to it more, maybe the stigma of it being "Linden owned" could cause people to worry about making certain changes, I personaly am reluctant to add stuff because it does say it's a support wiki and not everything I would add would be for support. I did add some stuff the Glossary because thats more general. Anyway, it's possible for us to still do history, I mean history is a part of general life. And general topics will eventualy become history anyway. And the point that Eggy made about people being a little unsure what to add is a good one as well, opening it up for general topics allows a vaster array of knowledge to be gathered than history alone. I still of course do want to do History, that was the whole point of starting this. But I don't think theres anything wrong with broadning the scope, if you categorize and organize things well, nothing really becomes lost in the shuffle either. -User:Oz Spade 21:15, 31 Mar 2006 (EST) :I would still prefer a single SL wiki. The SL Wiki's page title says "Second Life Wiki" yet the main page says "Welcome to the Second Life Support Wiki!". I have changed that since it obviously isn't just about SL support. I say move all content to the SL Wiki but its wiki software is really annoying. It's already bad enough the SL Wiki's glossary as many duplicate terms that the LSL Wiki has. Recreating them on each wiki is annoying and just stupid, but linking between wikis is also annoying and stupid. There needs to be JUST a SINGLE SL Wiki--period. :-Eep 04:13, 1 Apr 2006 (EST) Clarification of purpose The thing about history is that what's not historical now will probably become historical later. By having the apparent restriction that anything added to this wiki has to be a part of SL's "history", we are limiting it to things that happened in the past. If we let people document things as they occur, we are likely to get more data and more contributions. There are a lot of uses for collaborative writing. Notecards cannot be written collaboratively and they are a pain to share with people. Moreover, once you share them, they cannot be kept in sync. If you are running a themed community, say, like Darkwood or Neualtenburg, where you have meetings and keep logs of meetings, you could use this wiki to store those and collaborate on things like writing down your group policies. You could use the user pages for blogs, I guess, but that wouldnt be terribly user friendly compared to a real blog. The key goal, as I see it, is to let people add more DATA to the wiki, so that we can later MINE it to build ARTICLES that can provide a coherent vision of SL history. These would still be the core of the wiki, I think. I don't have anything against people putting up tutorials or whatever, but my not-so-secret agenda is, of course, to further the cause of SL history. Oz - leave the museum alone ;) -Eggy 18:15, 2 Apr 2006 (EDT) I Agree I don't see anything wrong with adding current events to the wiki, but tutorials, references/glossaries, etc, I would say no and to take it to the SL Wiki. Obviously, scripting stuff should go to the LSL Wiki. I would still rather have a single SL wiki for everything but I guess that's just not going to happen. -Eep 00:40, 3 Apr 2006 (EDT) External Redirects Instead of recreating glossaries that already exist on the LSL Wiki and SL Wiki, why not create redirect pages for common terms like avatar, LSL, object, prim, simulator, etc (or at least link to the appropriate LSL/SL Wiki page from this wiki if this wiki's page has more info about the history of the term, or whatever)? That way the more technical data can remain on the LSL Wiki, the vague definition can be on the SL Wiki, and the historical definition on THIS wiki--phew! Still, I'd rather just have a SINGLE wiki! -Eep 09:52, 24 Apr 2006 (EDT) :Yes, Eep, I am all for interwiki linkage. I am also all for having a single wiki, hence my idea of broadening scope - if I had the resources of a company like Microsoft at my disposal, I would "embrace and extend" the other wikis ;) I believe wikimedia to be a far superior platform, and it's what most people are used to. :-Eggy 14:16, 25 Apr 2006 (EDT) ::Regarding interwiki links, how can we set this up for the 3 SL-related wikis (4 if you include the hacks wiki--which I still have yet to visit--URL)? ::-Eep 08:48, 30 May 2006 (EDT) :::That's a great idea Eep. We do not have direct access to the server, for security reasons, since it's shared with the Second Server e-commerce site. But I will ask Adam Zaius about it. Thank you for the suggestion and kudos for the great find :) :::-Eggy 10:40, 30 May 2006 (EDT) ::::Here is the Mediawiki info on setting up Interwiki links. Basically, it's stored in the database, and you add new entries manually via phpmyadmin or SQL; there's no real web interface for doing so. ::::-Dyne ::The problem with broadening the scope of THIS wiki is that there is already so much info on the OTHER wikis that it would be futile to add it HERE and then have to keep track of the updates on the OTHER wikis. LL would also have to endorse/condone a single, central SL wiki. Ideally, it should run on their servers like the current SL Wiki and LSL Wiki are but, perhaps, maintained by residents since LL can't seem to even maintain the SL and LSL Wikis that well as it is... ::MediaWiki (correct name) is better than TikiWiki but I like WakkaWiki (as used on the LSL Wiki) better in terms of linking [[]] is used for ALL links, not Media-/TikiWiki's inconsistent (()), [], AND [[]] crap and space vs. | idiocy) and other edit syntax. WakkaWiki's syntax just makes more sense: more, not less, =s for larger headers, ** for bold, // for italics, etc. A cross between WakkaWiki and MediaWiki would be nice. ::-Eep 06:27, 26 Apr 2006 (EDT) Ads and Interest builds... Regarding ads, I already have a metadverse thingy setup with two boards at the museum, so it wouldn't be a problem to somehow add an ad through that, although I've not really read how to do it but I'm sure its not hard to do. The only thing would be to actualy make an ad. Also I'm not sure what other services there are to ad with. I can think of the InfoNet which I think may give a discount or free for educational stuff such as the history project, I'd have to talk with Squagmire about this, I intended to put an ad on there, but never got around to making one. We could ask Aimee if she would like to make ads for the services since her other ads for Snapzilla were good. Regarding some kind of... thing... for interesting builds. I think this is a good idea as well, it should of course be voluntary (i.e. don't go placing them around on places without having the owner ask for such :P). I would say perhaps it dispense a notecard with possibly: a short description of the location (background etc.), any images, and a "link" (basicly the url since we can't really link in notecards) to a wiki page on the build. We could do an idea that was discussed awhile back and have plaques of some kind like "This Plaque Commemorates A Memorable Build At This Location" or something... but thats kinda more on the historic side rather than a general thing. We could do both a Historic Plaque kinda thing and a more general "Interesting Build"? Another possibility or in addition to the above idea would be to have kinda Teleport Tours as there was back "in the old days" (there is a Teleport Tour model in the basement of Steller/Governor's mansion). Since we don't have llTeleport yet we could use llMapDestination instead. It would work similar to a webring where you could go back or forward to locations with perhaps an Index notecard with a list of all the locations in order. I don't think it'd be hard to do this using MapDestination untill we get llTeleport and then switching them out, would just require updating models etc. -Oz Spade 01:41, 5 Apr 2006 (EDT) Input on proposed guidelines Please vote here, voice your concerns, or propose ammendments. I think there should always be a safety clause "Except where the administration decides otherwise." Other than that, however, it looks like a fine list. -Tateru 10:14, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) :I agree with Tateru. Also "The administration should give users a grace period of 7 days to see if they or anyone else actually develops the page a bit further." Doesn't this contridict the guidlines? Shouldn't we just remove a page if it doesn't fall in our guidlines? Why give a grace period to a page that doesn't follow them? -Oz Spade 16:24, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) ::Because sometimes you do set up things with the full intention of adding to them later. If you force people to wait on EVERYTHING until it is fully formed, it will discourage people from contributing at all. Also, because users, especially new ones, will make mistakes and not always understand what you are going fo, and you should give them a chance to fix them themselves before getting trigger-happy with the big red BALEETED button. One of the problems with wikis is that new users (at least those who are respectful of others stuff, which I hope is the sort we'd like to encourage) feel uncomfortable changing things that others have made -- whether it be an individual article or the wiki as a whole. They don't feel enough sense of ownership to be comfortable with what they are doing, and they feel too much sense that others own it. Being overly strict excaberates that feeling, and again, discourage contribution. -Dyne 17:25, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) :::I agree to a degree. I don't think a page should be created unless you have atleast more than one sentence to add to it at that time. What I'm referring to is pages that have two words, half a sentence, or just a link on them, these I would delete because they're usually spawned out of "click every red link I see and add short content on them as fast as I can" type thinking. -Oz Spade 19:58, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) ::Also, is this a collaboration or a wiktatorship? Instead of mindlessly deleting a page, why not simply ask about its relevance on its talk/discussion page? As it is now, deleted pages can't be added to, despite the supposed "7-day grace period"! -Eep 08:11, 14 Jun 2006 (EDT) :I also suggest: :*"Guidlines are subject to change" :*"We observe Wikipedia policies" ::*"3 revert rule" ::*"Do not revert pages reverted by a moderator" ::-Oz Spade 19:58, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) :Adam Zaius suggested another possible idea which is to have the wiki auto-limit the size of a page to be created. So you could say "if a page creation is under 50 words, do not create". This would prevent the problem of placeholder pages in the future. Oz Spade 05:29, 14 Jun 2006 (EDT) ::I just don't understand what the big deal about stub pages is. Empty ("placeholder") pages I can understand but not stubs which have SOME content on them (like how I tend to make pages with at least a link to another SL wiki). Again, as I said before, I'm setting up the framework and basic content that CAN BE EXPANDED ON IN THE FUTURE. You guys need to be more patient. I'm only one person, you know...I can't add essays to EVERY page at first... -Eep 07:44, 14 Jun 2006 (EDT) :::And what everyone else is trying to say is that we don't want "framework", we want pages created with a decent amount of content in them to start with. So don't create pages that YOU can't at least add a few lines to. A few lines. Not a link or two on a single line. THEN other editors might see fit to expand on them. Elle Pollack 16:12, 14 Jun 2006 (EDT) ::::And how many lines is a "few", Elle? And at what screen resolution? Can the web browser me narrowed so thin that even a few words looks like multiple lines? Do you see how ridiculous this rule is? The point about collaborative content is that ANYONE and EVERYONE can add to it. Why limit growth based on some silly, arbitrary rule. Ever heard of a stub? Geez...you people LOVE to make more work for yourselves--talk about inefficiency! -Eep 17:26, 14 Jun 2006 (EDT) I don't agree with some of these proposals * Who decides what's a "common dictionary term"? While I agree explaining what 3D and a UI are is beyond this wiki's scope, I still think a page with the common term (like 3D and wiki) are still better to link to than having to create an external link about the term EACH time it's linked to from this wiki. It's no big deal to include a simple page with a brief definition and external links to more info. This wiki is more of an SL encyclopedia and, as such, will (and should) have many common terms that relate to SL--3D-/UI-related terms are appropriate (especially since Oz wants to document SL's UI). * Script commands should link to function which links to the LSL Wiki's function list. * Redirects to orphans and short pages fall under the classification of a stub (see below). * A stub is a stub and shouldn't be limited to any particular line length. When is a stub no longer a stub? Vague... The other proposals seem fine. -Eep 16:06, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) :Eep, the gist of it is, an encyclopedia is not a dictionary and so we want to avoid definining words that are already defined in the dictionary, unless there's a completely different meaning for them in SL I suppose. Similarly, an SL encyclopedia should not contain stuff that is already very well documented on wikipedia. On top of that, we think it's preferrable to have a 500 word article instead of 500 one-word articles :) :-Eggy 16:19, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) ::Um, then why is there even a glossary category and page here, Eggy? Again, the "dictionary definitions" are related to SL and can be expanded on later (like I do with select). Someone on IRC was complaining about my SL webpage being too long and full of content and here you are complaining about pages being too SHORT on content. Sheesh...talk about a contradiction! I think it's better to have many smaller articles that link to other articles because it's more modular and less redundant to include the same (or similar) info on multiple pages (like Oz did with the linden tree). ::-Eep 16:52, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) :::As far as I know, we did not create a Glossary, as much as it was the only label we could put on those tiny articles you were creating. Oz made that, ask him :) :::-Eggy 17:51, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) Nifty subheading for separation Taking Eep's points in reverse order: * I'd suggest that if you see the need for a glossary (which does seem a useful thing to some extent, even if it's not purely encyclopedic, because frankly SL does use a bit of jargon), then write it as one (1) article. There's something to be said for the convenience of a local and specifically tailored resource like that as opposed to a general purpose one like an ordinary dictionary. However, not all of this stuff really needs to be clarified for most people, stuff like "cube" and "sphere". And it certainly doesn't require one article for each word. :The problem with putting them all on a single page is the page gets VERY long VERY quick. I created separate pages for each prim type because each prim type has specific parameters, history (when it was introduced, what parameters were added/removed to it, etc), and other info. I find it odd you can't realize, understand, and accept this reasoning. :-Eep 22:17, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) "Who decides what's a "common dictionary term"? While I agree explaining what 3D and a UI are is beyond this wiki's scope, I still think a page with the common term (like 3D and wiki) are still better to link to than having to create an external link about the term EACH time it's linked to from this wiki." I assume you are taking issue with having to do that a lot, as it's no less effort to create a new page for a one-use link than it is to just go ahead and link externally. So my question is, why do we have to link those terms frequently in the first place, externally or internally? Taken to its logical extreme, that sort of thing leads to an article where every single word links to its dictionary entry. If it's beyond the scope to explain what those things are, it's probably unnecessary to link them, as well. (As an aside, "UI" is something I would put on the glossary, at least the abbreviation.) As with all things linguistic, there's going to be no hard and fast rule that determines what's common and what isn't, but that doesn't mean we need to include everything just in case. You CAN eliminate common words: "Cat." Common. "Mouse." Common, even the computer usage. "World." Common. "Virtual Machine" Probably not so common. "Grid" Common, but the SL usage is fairly specific. I suggest using the "mom" test. If you could probably use the word in a conversation with your mother, and she could understand you without you explaining what the word means, there's probably no need to explain it (or link to an explanation) here. :This is so ludicrous it's ridiculous. Every mom is different. My mom is fairly dumb when it comes to computers so, by your logic, I would have to explain most of the words I have already created separate pages for. :-Eep 22:17, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) I suspect that most of the terms that are uncommon enough to require explaining can also have articles written about them. Virtual machine, for example, can talk about LSL as well as the promised Mono feature, and what it might add, as well as defining what a virtual machine is. The ones that are left are what would go in the glossary. : Commonality is relative; what's common to one person may be obscure to another--you just can't make that assumption (especially since you said before how you want this website to be accessible to a complete newbie). Stop being a hippocrite please; it's getting REALLY annoying and frustrating dealing with your "logic" (or lack thereof). :-Eep 22:17, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) * I don't think you can define how long an article must be before NO LONGER being a stub, but it's not unreasonable to say that if you can't even write a paragraph about the topic, it probably shouldn't be added until you can. :I COULD write a paragraph about every single solitary one of the terms I've added, but I don't. Why? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SO UNBELIEVABLE REDUNDANT! Whey regurgitate info that's on another, more general page? Why define specific terms on a general page when they can easily be referenced modularly through the amazing concept of LINKS? Good god--are you new to the Web or something? :-Eep 22:17, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) * Again, if you want a function list, you can make one article that reproduces LSL wiki's function list, and the entries in the article link to that wiki until the entries are moved over here. :That is stupid and will be FAR more work than simply linking to function here that links to the LSL Wiki function list. :-Eep 22:17, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) * General point: lots of "placeholder" articles not only clogs up the recent changes list, it also directly affects the the wiki readership. The more people click on links only to find that they aren't useful, the less useful the wiki as a whole will seem. In effect, you are diluting the content. It's preferable to add entire articles and build the structure slowly than it is to set up the complete structure quickly while leaving it devoid of useful content in the long term. -Dyne 17:25, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) :The glossary is intended for SL related terms only really. Same as the SL Wiki glossary, while general things are in SL, such as SL using 3D graphics, 3D is not a SL term nor does it have any special usage in SL. But something like "Primitive" does have SL specific relation. ::3D is a DIRECTLY relevant term to SL--without 3D SL wouldn't exist! ::-Eep 22:17, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) :I agree with you on all other points except for perhaps the function list. I think it would be better for a user reading a page to be able to go to the best source of information directly. Such as if there is "llUnsit" in a release note, instead of creating a page or having llUnsit link to a function list, just have it link directly to the LSL wiki page for llUnsit. This to me seems to make the most sense and be the most helpful. Oz Spade 19:58, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) ::It's not and is MUCH more work. My way is more efficient and easier to implement. ::-Eep 22:17, 9 Jun 2006 (EDT) So what happened? I'll jump in rather late in the game. I wasn't born until months after the last post here. Did the wiki go down for a while? Or did future planning cease in June of '06? I am the appointed historian of an estate--and I was so appointed when it was less than two months old and had two sims. I published an "early history" of the estate just over two months later, as the estate was about to open a fourth sim. It is now at seven. Even with just five-plus months of "history", only a tiny fraction remember the early days and the formative decisions, and the recollections of those few will differ. History *is* current events, or at least what once were current events. Anything we do to encourage documenting current affairs, especially those with some likelihood of lasting (like sim development), ultimately serves our purpose of documenting SL history. Let time sort out the merits and inspire any meta-articles. Detailed comment on the guidelines to follow. Aoavicechair 16:53, 29 Aug 2007 (EDT)